Linux – and free software in general – have been traditionally plagued with one constant concern by the non-users [by that I mean the Windows and the Mac bandwagon] that there are far too many choices. Which Linux flavor to choose? You have Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Unnamedubuntu, and what not. Windows has XP and Mac has OSX. I personally believed [as highlighted here] that it was perfect with the ideology of FSF. Concept of freedom [as in free speech] brings about a related concept of choice. There are many people believing in many ideologies, methods and concepts there. The same is obviously extended to the software developers as well. [They are human for uninitiated] So, you have very many software that are generated.
Saying you have just way too many choices is like saying you have too many choices when you go to buy a pair of running shoes. Or saying you have far too many options when you go to buy a mobile connection. Why should software be any different? You’d expect the user to be aware of the options, and choose or make a mistake just like _any_ consumer market!!
Anyway, Microsoft, with its release of multiple options for Windows Vista may have either finally accepted this or have joined the bandwagon.
Microsoft offers 4 separate versions of Windows Vista – Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business and Vista Ultimate! Hmm, maybe it’s the year for options after all 
!
Does more choice generally mean that it’s better or is it confusing? What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments section!!
Originally posted by gurupanguji @ Bracketed Bull…
Just because there are several versions of Vista doesn’t matter. The important question to be asking is, is it free? In terms of being Open Source.
The answer is no. To me, then, it doesn’t matter whether there’s one or three thousand versions of Windows. If they’re all closed source, they’re of no use and they are ethically repugnant.
All it means is that they’re releasing different versions of a bad product. If you think that you have options when you buy and install Windows, I’m worried for you! There are no options in a closed-source proprietary package.
This is not to point out that Windows products are of a pretty poor quality in the first place…
If Windows wanted to jump on the FOSS bandwagon, they’d have to open source their OS and write better software. I don’t see either ever happening. They’re not interested in offering you choice: they’re interested in your money and in making sure you don’t use anything else other than what they give you.
Sorry for the rant
By: Mig on December 31, 2006
at 2:33 am
If you check the Windows site, you’ll see that there were four “editions” of Windows 2000 (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulletins/extendedsupport.mspx), and there are five editions (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/compare.mspx) of Windows XP (granted one of them is the x64 version). This is not anything new, and it means nothing.
By: lnxwalt on December 31, 2006
at 11:14 am
Vista cannot afford to be free. Well, we have to learn to accept that Redmond doesn’t want to work the way GNU/Linux or FSF works. They obviously don’t believe in the Open Source model. [With the Microsoft-Novell tie up, I don't know what anyone believes in anymore].
Consider this – Vista was worked after spending $5Billion and over 5 man-years of resources. Now, that has to be collected back and preferably a profit made over the same! So, there’s no WAY that Microsoft is going to make Vista free [as in free speech].
However, I am wondering why they are not adopting / accepting the rejected now, open source model. Windows 95 and Windows 98 has phased out. Now, there’s no point in still maintaining those as closed. *Tsk Tsk Tsk* I don’t understand why Microsoft is not letting the source for those Open?
I think that’s unjustified isn’t it? Nobody has proved that Windows Vista is a bad product. In fact, personally I have read accounts of certain key improvements in Vista, which has to be heralded as very pertinent and indeed helpful [No, I am not talking about mere eye candy]
Microsoft has _never_ claimed that they are _not_ interested in our money. They are not the greatest business organization in the world for nothing. The only thing that I want from Microsoft is a “good” product, which is stable, secure, has a lot of good features built into it, is helpful and does not make me less productive than I already am after adopting their product. If to make me more productive, they are charging me money, I am willing to give them, however, iff they deliver what they promise.
Try as we mite blame ‘em, we still have to agree that Microsoft and Windows to a large extent have made the PC a lot more accessible and understandable amongst the major community. People did NOT adopt Microsoft Windows as that was the only choice. It was the best choice @ that point of time. Microsoft mere capitalized on the fact that with 90% people of the Internet browsing people using Windows, they are extremely powerful!!
!
No problem for the rant. Personally I use and love Windows and Linux [Fedora Core 6 (Zod)]!!
By: Guru Panguji on December 31, 2006
at 12:33 pm
[...] Does more choice generally mean that it’s better or is it confusing? What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments section!! [...]
By: Planeta Gentoo » Question: Is Microsoft going the Linux way? Does more mean better? on December 31, 2006
at 1:28 pm
“United we Stand Divided we Fall”
look at this scenario what if all the linux programmer distributer joined forces. Couldn’t it take over APPLE And MS. The problem with linux is there is no standards in the way applications are installed and the way programs and interfaces work.
@lnxwalt I saw the link technically there are only two versions of Windows XP for the end users but with Vista you have differnent version for different End Users and Personally I hate this Since your getting a Crippled version of the software. Look at APple its only one MAC OSX
By: scribez on December 31, 2006
at 1:55 pm
@ all: I don’t think I was articulate enough. The concept is that Windows is right now in between Linux [plethora of choices], and Mac OSX [single option, note that there are separate packages iLife, blah blah
].
@ scribez: Linux has never believed in the concept you highlighted. They are all up for standards, however, their motto is governed by something superior [at least that's the idea] – FREEDOM [as in free speech].
So, while they will be more than willing to accept standards, if a community feel that something needs to be done a certain way, they will definitely be ready to go off the “mainstream” and do it the way they want to. It’s amazing how Linus is maintaining the Linux main branch still pretty much resilient.
If you read The Cathedral and the Bazaar by ESR, one of the proponents / gurus of OSS and FSF, you will understand the concept that standards are hard to maintain and easily to evolve. And there’s nothing known as a perfect standard/interface considering that software is one of the microcosms where evolution is accelerated.
@ lnxwalt: I agree with scribez and what he’s pointed out. You have XP Home and XP Professional. Ok, will give you XP Media Center Edition, however that’s it!! Vista has different versions and while they are actually segregating the market [which is excellent business wise - Read The Goal 2, by Eliya M Goldratt] they are digressing from the concept of their Operating System, targeting the “majority” end-consumer. Windows always dumbed down their OS, targeting the dumbest of the consumers. This is one of their reasons for success. However, now with the different market segments, they are now actually charging more for wanting more from an Operating System, even for it to LOOK GOOD!! Yup, they are crippling the OS allrite.
!
By: Guru Panguji on December 31, 2006
at 2:22 pm
Look at FireFox (It implements w3c core web standards) its one of the main reasons why MS was forced to Revamp IE. Thats what I meant by Standards Web Designer love it since things work the way they are meant to if you follow the standards. Even though its hard to maintain its a good thing also it not like you are forced to implement everything laid out by the standards Body. There should be some kind of International body like w3c for Linux Distribution which layout standards for installation Packages User interface etc for the most commonly used things. Freedom is a illusion also too much freedom has its diadvantages. Like I said United we stand Divided we Fall.
By: scribez on December 31, 2006
at 2:49 pm
Please tell me that you don’t believe in that. That’s the very idea that makes us take whatever paths we choose, whatever it is that we want to do right? Else you must believe that there’s control over every action you take and every decision you make. And not just by your brain, by some force/body that governs you?
I believe in God, however, I still believe that we control what we do, you’re not being controlled by anything.
[Sorry to take the discussion off the topic 
]!
Regarding a central body that decides on guidelines, or heuristics if you will, regarding standards for application package installers and user interfaces, well you kinda have that already. It’s just that you have a choice there as well.
Take application package installers – you have apt / yum. If you consider user interfaces, you could say that you have Gnome / KDE / Ice box / Metabox / with Metacity / Compiz / Beryl
! You have freedom even in standards 
!
By: Guru Panguji on December 31, 2006
at 2:58 pm
Not entirely but in parts
See that what I meant isn’t that too many choices
where is the quality control. Linux interfaces suck even if you tweak it as much to your liking
By: scribez on December 31, 2006
at 4:13 pm
I use Windows XP [with a Vista theme and Mac OSX icon set] and Fedora Core 6 [Gnome sans Compiz or Beryl, just plain old Metacity]. Maybe it’s the change that I demanded from Windows, but Gnome is a lot more appealing to me than XP rite now. XP looks way more polished than Gnome with my current theme, but still that rawness maybe what is appealing to me!!
!
By: Guru Panguji on December 31, 2006
at 6:14 pm
>>Linux interfaces suck even if you tweak it<<
It has been my experience (working in Windows / Office support for a good-sized enterprise) that people are very frustrated about all the choices being taken away from them. For business users anyway, XP’s interface is the problem, not because of the looks, but because it constantly distracts you from what you are doing with annoying little pop-up messages, plus the smallest things (like installing a cheap personal printer) will install some background process that slows things down considerably.
If you take most of those same people and give them the choice of GNOME or KDE, they tend to choose one and ask how to customize it. What I think people do want is sensible defaults, and then an easy way to adapt things to their own styles of working.
By: lnxwalt on December 31, 2006
at 10:43 pm